Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we all share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, about the level of violence, particularly in Baghdad and Basra. Can the Minister tell us a little more about what is happening in the north of the country? At a recent meeting in London, women representatives from the north of the country, particularly Erbil and Kirkuk, said that they felt that there was less violence there and that there were more opportunities for trade and commercial activity. Can the Minister endorse that view, or does she take a contrary view?

Lord Warner: It has a great deal to do with the Statement, my Lords. The deficit in 1996–97 was 1.5 per cent of turnover, which is about double the deficit that we announced today. It was £460 million. The idea that this is a new phenomenon is misleading to the House. That is what is relevant to the Statement.
	The noble Earl also suggested that the Department of Health had lost control of the money. We have not; we acted when it became clear that the NHS was heading for deficit, and he will recognise that the figure announced today is less than the figure at the six-month point in the year. He raised central contracts; yes, the contracts cost us more than we or the trade unions and professional associations anticipated. But staff are getting paid more for doing more, particularly GPs under performance-related pay. I am proud of the fact that we are now paying NHS staff, particularly nurses, appropriately, because we were not doing that in the past. The latest GP contract—it started in April—has a zero-inflation uplift. That is part of a process of employing only the number of staff you can afford and using them to their full ability. This has been a set of arrangements agreed with all the staff negotiators in their professions and groups.
	The noble Earl raised the issue of the contingency reserve, but the Department of Health has not gone to that reserve. We are consuming, in that hackneyed phrase, our own smoke in this area with the NHS. We are working with those challenged parts of the NHS to return them to balance. Of course, year-in year-out on such a big programme as Connecting for Health, some years there are underspends and in others there are overspends. I recall, although I do not have the details, that there was a small contribution from Connecting for Health because of a slowdown of expenditure in 2005–06.
	As I said in the Statement, we wish to ensure that everyone in the NHS is within monthly balance by the end of this financial year. Some will be in monthly balance for longer periods than others, as is inevitable, because they start from different points. Overall, as I said in the Statement, the NHS will not be in deficit.
	The noble Earl referred to the Audit Commission and the low quality of financial reports. It is true that there have been concerns about the 2004–05 reports in a minority of NHS trusts, but that is why we are now working with the NHS turnaround teams and others to improve the financial performance of the NHS.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised the issue of the contribution made by foundation trusts to the deficits. That is the responsibility of the independent regulator/monitor, which published its report on that issue on 5 June. I will ensure that a copy of the report is placed in the Library. It shows that there is a small deficit overall but that the overwhelming majority of foundation trusts are in surplus or balance. But I shall make that report available to the House.
	The noble Baroness also said that the accounts were unaudited. That is absolutely true; we made that clear in the Statement. When the audited accounts have been received and fully compiled they may show that the position is worsening; but they could also show that it is improving. So we will not know the position until later in the year, when those reports are available.
	I was interested to hear the noble Baroness mention Dr Miller and his views on what is wrong. He seems to have greater clarity than the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office, the director of finance, our financial advisers and some of the turnaround teams. They show that a much more mixed and complex set of arrangements in certain trusts have caused things to go wrong. There are no simple, overall explanations of why things have gone wrong in certain places. We must address the particular circumstances of those places to put them right. I do not have the budget for the turnaround teams in my brief or in my head but I shall write to the noble Baroness and copy it to other noble Lords as soon as I can lay my hands on that information.
	I am always glad to hear the noble Baroness and her colleagues bash targets. It is interesting to bash centrally driven targets. However, I should like to quote a short extract from Sir Ian Carruthers' report, which shows that these terrible targets have actually improved care for patients. He states:
	"Waiting times are shorter . . . Most people who need surgery are in hospital within nine weeks".
	He says that A&E departments have improved considerably and that,
	"lives are being saved through reductions in deaths from cancer, circulatory disease, coronary heart disease".
	Such improvements have happened partly because there has been commitment from the NHS to deliver changes that have clearly been set out in targets which the NHS has embraced and put into practice to improve patient care.

Lord Warner: My Lords, on that last point I direct my noble friend to the report published recently—I shall send her a copy of it—by the Independent Healthcare Commission, which contained a patient survey that showed that patient satisfaction was rising in the NHS. That source is independent from the Government. I shall make sure that there is also a copy in the Library.
	My noble friend asked how we would ensure that patient care did not suffer. The Independent Healthcare Commission will continue to produce its annual ratings of the performance across a number of domains of individual trusts. It continues to have a power, which it exercises, to put particular trusts on special measures if there are serious concerns about particular aspects of their clinical services. A strong SHA performance management system is in place, the national target requirements for waiting times and so on continue to be in place, and national clinical directors are in constant contact with the NHS, picking up any concerns about problems in particular areas.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments on the role I played on this, and I thank your Lordships' House for the patience with which it has allowed this issue to be dealt. The noble Baroness is right to say that from the beginning of the Bill, my honourable and right honourable friends in another place from the Department for Constitutional Affairs have indicated that this issue has to be addressed. I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to all those—including Andrew Tyrie, the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and many others—who have contributed to the debate and made clear their strong feeling that we need to address this subject. I would also like to pay tribute to my right honourable friend Des Browne who, on taking over as Secretary of State for Defence, was immediately extraordinarily receptive to the issues that I raised with him. On that basis, I was able to bring forward the amendments that are before your Lordships' House today, as I promised I would.
	I take seriously what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said, and I carefully considered all the questions that the noble Baroness raised both in your Lordships' House and beyond it. I pay tribute to her for the way in which she has enabled me to have that dialogue, which has been so important. In the remarks that I am going to make, I hope to try to win her and her colleagues over, not least by putting forward the context of this amendment. As the noble Baroness rightly indicated, it is important to see this as part of a broader package. However, this package is different from the one that she suggested.
	I shall explain precisely what the amendments do, and I have already indicated that they are part of a wider package. The purpose of the amendment is to make the registration process more convenient for service personnel. As noble Lords will see, the amendments to Section 59 of the 1983 Act require the Ministry of Defence to keep a record of the registration arrangements of service personnel, where those personnel wish it to do so and have volunteered the relevant information. The earlier part of the amendment, which amends Section 15 of the 1983 Act, creates a power that will enable the Government to extend the duration of the electoral registration of a member of the Armed Forces resulting from a service declaration. That responds to one of the points the noble Baroness raised about the survey—I hope noble Lords have had a chance to look at it; there are copies in the Library of your Lordships' House. People were concerned about needing to re-register. That provision will come to your Lordships' House to be approved, and it is an important element. Its purpose is to make registration more convenient for those who choose to register through a service qualification. Those people could register for an extended length of time, as opposed to annually—that addresses the point that I have made—which would make it particularly convenient for those who are overseas.
	The amendment does not restrict service personnel to registering solely through a service declaration. Noble Lords who have participated or followed our debates will know that on a number of occasions we have discussed the question of being able to choose to register locally, the potential benefits that people have identified in so doing and their desire not to see us revert back to being able to register purely through a service declaration. I will not go into those again; I think noble Lords are aware of them.
	The second half of the amendment places a duty on the MoD to keep a record of the electoral registration details of service personnel, to maintain and update that information provided by service personnel about their registration as electors and by what method they are registered to vote. That will then act as a prompt to the individual to update registration details with the local registration officer—most particularly updating the address to which postal votes should be redirected—and enable efforts to be focused on encouraging them to register. It will provide the kind of statistical information that will allow monitoring on a continuous basis, which I know will be very important as noble Lords seek to see that this works in fact. It will also facilitate communication between the unit registration officers and the local ERO regarding the numbers registered and assist in future registration campaigns.
	I want to put this in the context of other measures that the Ministry of Defence has decided it would like to have as part of a package of measures. These include closer co-operation between the officer in each unit with responsibility for electoral registration and the local ERO, which is an important part of ensuring that this works well, and ensuring that the MoD issues every new entrant into the Armed Forces with an electoral registration form. The MoD will run campaigns during the annual canvass for service personnel whose service declaration is set to expire. Service personnel will receive reminders in payslips about registering to vote, giving such information as website addresses that they can reach. Access will be granted to service accommodation for electoral registration officers.
	Pilot schemes for on-site polling stations are being set up at two separate military establishments—in the Rushmoor and Westminster authorities. Future campaigns will include a service "Registration Day", which will act as a focal point for the campaign when unit registration officers will proactively use all appropriate measures to remind and inform service personnel and their families of the requirement to register to vote and how to do so.
	I think that fits well with what the Electoral Commission said in its briefing dated June 2006, which I have before me. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the Electoral Commission asks, "What more can you do?" It is looking for additional measures that would not require further changes to primary legislation but which could include some of the issues I have already raised.
	The noble Baroness said that we have not gone far enough. I hope that, having put the matter in context, I have at least begun to reassure her that, as part of a package of things, this is an important measure that I am delighted to be able to bring to your Lordships' House, having accepted that noble Lords have been extremely active in ensuring that I did bring it to your Lordships' House.
	The fundamental difference between us is on whom we put the duty or responsibility for this action. The way our electoral law has worked and the way we have always seen the issue of registration is that the duty and responsibility lies with the individual. I recognise entirely what the noble Baroness says about the difference of the employer status of the Armed Forces. Noble Lords will know that there are other employers who perhaps have people overseas, but I recognise and completely accept the particular significance for the Armed Forces. We do not believe it is right to put the onus on the employer, but rather to work with the employer in these particular circumstances to help to enable the individual to accept and respond to his duty and responsibility.
	We do not think it is right to treat a government department differently from any other employer as noble Lords could well bring forward other cases involving particular circumstances. We think it is right and proper though that this particular employer should take additional action and be seen to be very positively encouraging people, who carry out for us the most significant of tasks, to register.
	Of course there will be resources implications in what the noble Baroness is suggesting. I will not go into those because that is not at the heart of the matter. I think that it is very important that we recognise what we are seeking to do.
	I know that I will probably have disappointed the noble Baroness, but I hope that noble Lords will see that in what we propose, we stick with the principle that it is for the individual to take that responsibility. We should not shirk from that, but it is absolutely right and proper—I pay tribute to all those who have helped me to get this far with the amendment—that we do all that we possibly can to ensure that they can do so. I hope that noble Lords will accept my amendment.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I rise to support the government amendment and, for the first time during this process, I do not propose an amendment because I am familiar with all the words in the government amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, thinks that the amendment is a smokescreen, I must admit to some of it being my smokescreen, because many of the words, thoughts and concepts there are in the amendment that I have been pushing at each previous stage of the Bill.
	I am entirely content that the amendment achieves what we were after, which is to facilitate the registration and voting process by getting the MoD to consider it but, most importantly, putting a duty on the MoD to keep an index of the annual registration process. I am convinced that that will do what the Conservative amendment is intended to do: force the MoD to go through the process every year. There will then be a co-operative MoD; that has been the difficulty. I know that there has been more difficulty with that aspect than anything else.
	The government amendment has one addition, which was not proposed by me, which is the delegated power for the Secretary of State to be able to extend the registration period for up to five years. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on which I serve—I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who is its chairman, is in his place—has not, because of the lateness of this amendment, had an opportunity to take a view on it. I can say only personally that, because of the narrowness of the power and its clear intent, I find it entirely appropriate.
	However, I hope that it will not be necessary to use that delegated power. If the Ministry of Defence takes up its duty with enthusiasm, we can operate with servicemen and servicewomen on the same basis as the rest of our citizens and will not need to go down the route of special arrangements that may be confusing and have some of the drawbacks that we had with permanent registration before. It is a useful power to have up the sleeve but not necessarily one that will need to be used.
	I fear that I must introduce one note of discord; I am sorry. Various noble Lords have talked about the results of the Defence Analytical Services Agency Service Voting Survey 2005, which was undertaken in autumn 2005. I have been pressing for us to see it; it would have informed our discussion because we could have drawn on it to make our amendments as good as possible. Despite the final report being available in March, the Ministry of Defence did not release it to your Lordships until Monday; it arrived to me in the post on Tuesday. In the Written Statement that accompanies it, the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, treats the survey results as though they are accurate. He says that it,
	"gives us hard facts to target future work".—[Official Report, 5/6/06; col. WS 65.]
	The letter that I received from the responsible Minister in the other place, Tom Watson, similarly suggests that the results are clear.
	In our debate so far, we have been taking those percentages as though they were carved in tablets of stone. In fact, if you read paragraph 1.6 of the report, entitled "Limitations of the research", that shows that the overall response rate to the survey was only 45 per cent. In the key area of the Army (other ranks based overseas), only 26 per cent bothered to return the survey. The report draws the following conclusion from that:
	"Personnel who did not respond may have different voting and registration experiences to those who did. It is not possible to ascertain if this is true or to quantify the size of any effect".
	In other words, if the people who fail to return survey forms tend also to be the people who fail to return electoral registration forms—which is not an unreasonable assumption—the statistics may be much worse than the already terrible figure of 28 per cent reported for those overseas who managed to vote in the 2005 election. I hope the Ministry of Defence intends to do less spinning of the statistics in the future and a little more working-out of how this legislation can improve voting opportunities for its people. In particular, it will need to address the mechanics of making overseas postal voting possible. We look forward to the update, which is promised every year, to this survey. We will have much better figures on registration because of what is in the Bill, but we will need to have better figures on how much effect we are having on voting as opposed simply to registration.
	Finally, I thank the Minister personally for all the effort that she and her staff in the Department for Constitutional Affairs have put into achieving where we have got to today. We have also had great support from the Electoral Commission, from the British Forces Broadcasting Service, from parliamentarians across both Houses and all the parties, and from a number of electoral registration officers who, in the light of what the Minister said about the package, will now find their relationships with MoD establishments much easier, which is important.
	The real hero, however, has been a retired Army officer called Douglas Young, the author of a report called Silence in the Ranks. He used the power of the internet through the Army Rumour Service network to identify the scale of the problem, and he gave helpful advice to servicemen and servicewomen on that website, so we got a better response in 2005 than we would have done otherwise. He also spotted errors in the official information on MoD and local authority websites, and he mounted the campaign to right what we have all agreed is a wrong. The chain of command has not come out of this with distinction, having shown a reluctance to tackle the problem. It is perhaps scarcely surprising that this week has also seen the launch of the British Armed Forces Federation. I am sure we shall return to that when we consider the Armed Forces Bill in the coming weeks.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, for what they said. I also thank the Minister for her explanation of the package, which she has described as a package that the MoD is putting together to encourage the registration of service personnel. But it is still only an encouragement; it is not a requirement or a duty. It may all work out perfectly wonderfully, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, may be correct that everything in the legislation will do what he and I have been trying to achieve in the past few weeks, but I am afraid that I am still not convinced that that is so.
	I said in my opening remarks that there is a requirement on a householder. Noble Lords may not see the direct correlation, but a householder is required to register all the people who live in their house. It seems to me that the Ministry of Defence is very much in that position. It is the householder and knows who it has under its roof. It knows where those people are—at least, I hope it does. It is meant to know where they are, and it is meant to ensure that they have the opportunity and the rights that they should have.
	I do not think the Minister will be surprised by my seeking to divide on this; it comes from no sense of animosity, because I do think we have moved an enormously long way, but if I could secure the last bit of this, I think we would have the perfect amendment for the perfect result that we have all been looking for. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 2:
	After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTRATION IN PURSUANCE OF SERVICE DECLARATION
	(1) In section 15 of the 1983 Act (service declaration), after subsection (8) insert—
	"(9) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, in relation to the persons mentioned in section 14(1)(a) and (d), subsection (2)(a) above has effect as if for the period of 12 months there were substituted such other period (not exceeding five years) as he thinks appropriate.
	(10) The power to make an order under subsection (9) is exercisable by statutory instrument, which may contain such incidental or consequential provision as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
	(11) No order may be made under subsection (9) unless—
	(a) the Secretary of State first consults the Electoral Commission, and
	(b) a draft of the instrument containing the order is laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(12) If the period substituted by an order under subsection (9) is longer than the period for the time being in force, the longer period has effect in relation to any person who immediately before the order was made was entitled to remain in a register by virtue of subsection (2)."
	In section 59 of that Act (supplemental provisions as to members of forces and service voters), for subsection (3) substitute—
	"(3) Arrangements must be made by the appropriate government department for securing that every person having a service qualification by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of section 14(1) above has (so far as circumstances permit) an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights conferred on him by this Act in relation to—
	(a) registration in a register of electors (and in particular in relation to the making and cancellation of service declarations);
	(b) the making and cancellation of appointments of a proxy;
	(c) voting in person, by post or by proxy.
	(3A) Arrangements must be made by the appropriate government department for securing that such person receives such instructions as to the effect of this Act and any regulations made under it, and such other assistance, as may be reasonably sufficient in connection with the exercise by that person and any spouse or civil partner of that person of any rights conferred on them as mentioned above.
	(3B) In subsections (3) and (3A) "the appropriate government department" means, in relation to members of the forces, the Ministry of Defence, and in relation to any other person means the government department under which he is employed in the employment giving the service qualification.
	(3C) The Ministry of Defence must maintain, in relation to each member of the forces who provides information relating to his registration as an elector, a record of such information.
	(3D) The Ministry of Defence must make arrangements to enable each member of the forces to update annually the information recorded under subsection (3C)."
	(3) In section 59(4) of that Act, for "subsection (3)" substitute "subsections (3) and (3A)"."
	[Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, not moved.]
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I hope that I am on much less controversial ground here, and I know that the Minister will give way on this amendment without a moment's thought.
	The amendment returns us to an issue which we have debated in great detail throughout the passage of the Bill. I was disappointed to find on Report that my amendments on personal identifiers would have been destroyed by the government clause-stand part amendments, but I was glad to be able to go away to redraft the amendment in a form that is more amenable to noble Lords today.
	The amendment would require a signature and date of birth to be included in all voters' registration and not only in that of postal voters, which is already in the Bill. It would not interfere with arrangements as they stand in Northern Ireland, which I still believe to be the best option. A signature and date of birth are extremely easy to find: the one, you can simply write down; and the other, it is to be hoped you can remember.
	While I would still very much like to see national insurance numbers added as a personal identifier for voter registration, I have argued myself into the ground about it and I accept that noble Lords are not in favour of the idea. I am prepared to leave it to simmer until another opportunity arises to get it on the statute book, perhaps at a time when we find that a signature and date of birth are not quite sufficient as identifiers. However, what we want to secure at this stage is some form of personal identifiers for voting.
	Noble Lords will be aware of the Electoral Commission's campaign for personal identifiers. From the outset of the Bill, it has called for personal identifiers to be introduced, first into all-postal voting, and then, via a transitional arrangement, into the national canvass. It was pointed out in Committee that to say to people on the national non-postal canvass that they could sign if they wanted to, via the commission's proposed transitional scheme, would not yield an effective result—and I agree with that.
	So why postpone a good idea? The amendment regarding personal identifiers for postal voting which was introduced by the Government on Report was very welcome. It was the result of hard work by me and the noble Lords, Lord Elder and Lord Rennard—we all managed to agree at the same time—but we can go still further. Noble Lords will have read about the recent fraud in Coventry, where people who were in Pakistan somehow managed to vote in person at the polling station at the same time. This is just one in a long line of cases where identity has allegedly been impersonated at the polling station. The use of personal identifiers across the board would go a long way towards protecting individuals from this kind of fraud as well.
	The Minister has spoken in support of the principle of this amendment time and time again. In Committee, she stated that,
	"collecting personal identifiers has the potential to improve security and integrity in the electoral process".—[Official Report, 16/03/06; col. GC 593.]
	I was pleased to re-read that in Hansard and I am confident that my amendment strikes precisely the right balance between creating a safeguard against fraud and preventing the over-complication of registering to vote. At that stage the Minister also expressed her strong views about making sure that forms requesting information from people should be as simple and straightforward as possible.
	Provisions under Schedule 1 require voters to sign for their ballot paper at the polling station. Our amendment would therefore introduce a further check against fraud. Those registering to vote would provide a signature that would go on the register, which would then provide a check at the polling station. I do not see how the provision of a signature at the polling station will be of any use if there is no register of the original signature in the first place. What is more, our amendment would save voters the worry of finding a legitimate counterfoil to prove that their signature is theirs.
	I very much hope that noble Lords can support the amendment. In my view it would make a great contribution to the prevention of electoral fraud while retaining simplicity of information. I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, the amendment raises issues that are very much at the heart of the fundamental purpose of the Bill—to minimise fears of electoral fraud.
	Today we hear that there are no fewer than eight petitions in the High Court alleging electoral fraud in the recent local elections. There are, of course, allegations of fraud in many other areas, and we do not know the scale of it. It is an issue of ongoing concern, which will not end with consideration of the Bill.
	The Bill contains many provisions to deal with the potential for, and perception of, fraud, and to increase confidence in the electoral process, which have been welcomed on all sides of the House. Some welcome shifts have taken place on how we might deal with the issue in future. I very much welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is no longer pursuing national insurance numbers being a requirement for electoral registration. For me that was a step too far in trying to clamp down on fraud.
	I also welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, with helpful encouragement from the noble Lord, Lord Elder, has accepted that the date of birth should be required on postal vote applications. However, I am still not confident that the Bill will do as much as it should to prevent, deter and help to detect fraud in arrangements for postal voting.
	The amendment requires a signature and date of birth for everyone going onto the voting register. Indeed, there can be few legal forms that entitle you to do something and involve a legal requirement that you have to complete which do not require a signature. It is suggested that it would be difficult to do this on the form. But many of us with a close interest in the electoral process who are used to people filling in forms, including the form on which you apply to vote by post, do not think that it would be so difficult to require a signature on the form.
	During the Bill's passage the Government have accepted that a signature and a date of birth should be required on a form on which you apply for a postal vote, so how can it be so difficult to suggest that someone should provide a signature and a date of birth to be included on the electoral register? Recently I looked at my own voter registration form from the London borough of Lambeth. It is a clear example of a form where any change to the people listed on it requires a signature and a date of birth. It is not a complicated form that is difficult to complete. Certainly, it is easier than filling in a national lottery ticket, which I have never succeeded in understanding or filling in myself.
	There are, of course, remedies for any problems with people failing to return the registration form because it requires a signature and a date of birth. Some of those remedies are already in the Bill and are very much welcomed. Door to door canvassing constitutes a large part of addressing problems of low electoral registration. A very significant reason for the decline in the quality of our electoral register over the past 20 years or so is because local authorities have cut back in that area as they felt squeezed and obliged to deal with other matters.
	There is still great disquiet in this country about the potential for electoral fraud. That has grown significantly over the past few years, since the point at which we granted an automatic entitlement to vote by post but failed to provide proper safeguards at the same time. We can do many things in the Bill to help put that right, but we could go further and do better on the issue. There remains for some noble Lords the need for independent advice on this issue that does not come from any partisan source. I suggest that the only appropriate source of advice on something such as this is the Electoral Commission, with which we may agree or disagree on occasions. I asked it again today to state its position on this issue. It told me this morning:
	"The Commission remains committed to the principle of individual registration and welcomes the intention of amendments to introduce personal identifier requirements at registration. The Commission continues to believe that a system of individual registration would allow voters to participate with confidence in the electoral process".
	So do I.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, as I thought after the very substantial debate that we had on these matters in Committee that we had formed a sort of consensus view on how to proceed. However, it seems that we have an amendment today that would establish, as I understood it on my preliminary reading, a national roll-out of individual registration in all conditions.
	I will use my words with very great care in the light of the amendments that I moved in Committee, but I will say this. There is a tradition in this country of liberty and tolerance. In recent years, practices that many of us find alien have been brought into our electoral arrangements. Those practices appear to take place in very few parts of the country. I am at a loss to understand why we should punish the whole nation for the sins of a few, when the sins of the few take place only in a very small number of areas of the United Kingdom. My amendments in Committee very sensitively dealt with that issue, by suggesting that local authorities—where they believed that a particular problem existed—should have the right to apply for the introduction of a scheme whereby individual identifiers on the basis that the noble Baroness has presented would be required.
	There was a feeling among Members of the Committee that the issue was sensitive and that we should not go down that particular route; but I still believe that we should go down that route. I do not believe that it is right that we should require a system that is onerous to be applied nationally to every citizen that votes in the United Kingdom because of what has happened in certain parts of the United Kingdom, in very small areas, when we could deal with those problems in isolation on the basis of the amendments that I proposed. It is wrong that we should go down that route. I shall say no more on this occasion other than that I hope, in the event that the amendment is carried today, that there are people at the other end who understand the concerns that I am expressing, who subscribe to the same view that we should preserve the arrangements based on tolerance that have existed over the past 150 years, and we should maintain that kind of arrangement and not simply punish everyone for the sins of a few.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall say a few brief words; it is the only time I intend to speak at Third Reading. I take this opportunity to say how grateful I was in Grand Committee for the sympathetic, sensible and constructive way the Minister dealt with the raft of amendments that I moved—which, no doubt, some people in her department thought were tedious and time-wasting, but which I thought were all important—providing answers and, in some cases, taking them on board. That is symptomatic of the way this Bill is going through. It is going to be a much better Bill than it was when it came to this House, which is a tribute to all sides and the Minister in particular.
	I also apologise for not being able to be here during Report stage. I was actively engaged in other aspects of the electoral process and thought that was more important than coming here to talk about the legislation which I was campaigning under at the time. No doubt some people are quite grateful that I did not come, because proceedings did not take as long as they otherwise might.
	I am entirely in favour of this amendment. It is sensible to increase the number of sensible party names which can be used. If I had been here on Report, I would perhaps have gone into more detail and moved some amendments which would not be appropriate at Third Reading, because an underlying issue has not been properly addressed. It is entirely sensible for people to be able to call themselves "the Yorkshire Liberal Democrats" or "the Yorkshire Conservatives"— although my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland says "Not the Yorkshire and Humberside Liberal Democrats, please". It is perfectly sensible for people to call themselves "the Scottish Liberal Democrats", "the Welsh Liberal Democrats"—or "Democratiad Rhyddfrydol Cymru".
	What is not sensible and needs to be addressed—the Electoral Commission could do this—is political parties using their party name on the ballot paper to introduce a slogan. That is wrong and ought to be stopped. There have been a number of such instances. For example, the Liberal Democrats in London fought elections as "Liberal Democrats against the privatisation of the Tube". At the last European elections, the Conservatives did not just put "Conservative and Unionist party". I forget what their slogan was, but it was something like "Conservatives for reform and modernisation of Europe". There is a political party purporting to call itself "the Liberal party" which at the last European elections had the simple party name of "No Euro". This seems an abuse of the system. Whether used in the logo or the name, slogans should not appear on ballot papers. Legitimate party names should appear on ballot papers. While supporting my noble friend's amendment, I hope that the Electoral Commission will look at this, and find a way of banning people from abusing the ballot paper by putting political slogans on it.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 55, line 17, leave out ""five"" and insert ""12""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 56, line 12, leave out "five" and insert "12"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 58 [Reporting donations to members of the House of Commons]:

Lord Goodhart: In speaking to Amendment No. 19 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 and Amendment No. 30. These amendments raise an issue which has already been well debated, and I will therefore try to be as brief as possible.
	The Government have rightly made loans to political parties, subject to disclosure, whether or not they have been made at commercial rates. In doing so, the Bill will override the confidentiality requirements that may be contained in some or all of those loan agreements. Some of the loans have been made by people who would not have been allowed to make a donation to the party. That, of course, was legal under the 2000 Act, provided they were made on commercial terms, but it was plainly a breach of the spirit of the Act. In those circumstances we believe that the loan should not only be disclosed but that it should also be repaid.
	My original proposal was that the loan should be repaid as soon as the Bill not only became enacted but came into force. I was persuaded by the debate we had on that occasion that this was too drastic and that time should be given for repayment to avoid any immediate financial crisis for the parties concerned. On Report, therefore, I altered the amendments to allow 12 months from the date of the commencement of the Bill for repayment. That may be overriding the terms of the agreement, but no more so, I think, than by requiring disclosure which overrides a confidentiality clause.
	Further, where the loan agreement provides for repayment on demand or on fairly short notice—as I believe almost all of them will do—the lender who chooses not to recall the loan is in effect conferring a new benefit on the borrower. I believe it is wrong to allow loans in this category to remain outstanding indefinitely and that the provision in these amendments is necessary to bring to an end a practice that is an abuse of the spirit of the law and that these amendments also give fair time for repayment by political parties which have taken advantage of this loophole. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I find ourselves in agreement on the amendment, which I hope will bring some satisfaction to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly said that the transactions described and the loans made were made in good faith and completely legally. We believe that the transparency now required is right, but we continue to take the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Committee. The proposal would wreak havoc with party finances. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has gone some way to ameliorate those difficulties by giving a longer timescale, but none of us know whether any political party would be affected by that or in what way. There comes a point in retrospection where we must decide that we will go this far and no further.
	Noble Lords will be aware that political parties will look carefully at the loans that they receive. They will have the opportunity between the end of our scrutiny of the Bill and Royal Assent to think carefully about the provisions and their lenders will have the opportunity to say that they would rather have the loans repaid. That is for them. We then move to a period of greater transparency when the law takes effect. We continue to think that we have the balance right. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I seek clarification on this. I quite understand that it is impossible to predict the value of a capitalisation requirement, but will loans with a capitalisation clause have to be disclosed once the combined value of the original loan plus the capitalisation add up to more than £5,000? That would seem to be the logical conclusion, but I am not sure from the wording that that would be the result. That causes me some concern because, if that is the case, there would be a serious loophole here.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would have liked to move the amendment formally, but as it is in rather a large group, I should speak to it. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 to 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 59, 72 and 75.
	The amendments return us to an issue to which we gave consideration both on recommitment and on Report—the gap that existed in respect of disclosure of aggregated loans and donations. The Government are tabling the amendments because there was previously no provision in the Bill to aggregate loans and donations, such that it would have been possible to make a donation of £5,000 and a loan of £5,000 without a requirement for either to be disclosed.
	As I said on Report, it would be quite wrong for there to be such a gap. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his original amendment, which usefully highlighted this issue. I undertook to return to your Lordships' House with detailed amendments to tackle this important issue.
	These amendments close that gap. Under them, a requirement to report and to disclose is triggered where donations, regulated transactions, or any combination of donations and regulated transactions from the same permissible donor or authorised participant exceed the reporting threshold.
	The amendments adopt the term "relevant benefits" as a composite phrase to refer to something that is either a donation or a regulated transaction. The approach that we have taken is that it should not matter whether or not a donation, or a regulated transaction, or a combination of donations and regulated transactions are made. If the aggregate value of any combination of relevant benefits exceeds the initial reporting threshold of £5,000, or the subsequent reporting threshold of £1,000, a requirement to report is triggered.
	The reporting requirements have been kept as simple as possible. We have steered away from creating a complicated new structure and register for the separate reporting of hybrid aggregates. Rather, we have adopted the more straightforward way whereby donations feed into the existing reporting structure for donations and regulated transactions feed into the existing reporting structure for regulated transactions. So, a party must submit a donation report every quarter, which must list all recordable donations. Under the approach adopted by these amendments, it will not matter whether a donation is required to be reported because, first, it exceeds the reporting threshold in its own right, or, secondly, it is required to be reported because, taken with regulated transactions, it exceeds the reporting threshold. In either case, the donation must be entered in the donation report. In the second case, the regulated transaction must also be reported in the transaction report for that quarter.
	To ensure clarity, where a requirement to report is triggered because of an aggregation of donations and loans, this fact must be reported in the respective donation and transaction reports. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. These amendments fulfil a commitment made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on re-commitment of the Bill on 8 May when he introduced the main tranche of amendments regulating loans to political parties. He said then:
	"It will also be necessary to consider the most appropriate means by which to extend the provisions to Northern Ireland. Amendments will be brought forward for that purpose".—[Official Report, 8/5/06; col. 753.]
	These are those amendments.
	The regime for loans and other regulated transactions is modelled closely on that for donations which already exists in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, departing from it only where necessary to take account of the different nature of donations and loans. In considering how to apply the new provisions to Northern Ireland we naturally looked at how donations are dealt with there, both currently and in future plans.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the donations regime has been disapplied in Northern Ireland since 2000 by orders made under the 2000 Act. However, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill currently before this House contains provisions which mean that the disapplication of the regime will expire on 31 October 2007. After this point, the permissibility and reporting requirements of the donations regime will apply in Northern Ireland.
	However, modifications will be made to that regime. In relation to the reporting requirements, for a transitional period due to end on 31 October 2010—but subject to extension by order—details of donations reported to the Electoral Commission will be held confidentially. A permanent change will also be made to the permissibility requirements. Irish citizens and bodies who can donate to Irish parties will be permitted to donate to political parties in Northern Ireland.
	The amendments before us today extend the loans regime to Northern Ireland, but confer an order-making power on the Secretary of State. The order-making power will allow the loans regime to be modified as it applies in Northern Ireland, in a way that allows it to mirror the approach to be adopted in relation to donations as provided for in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	As noble Lords will recognise from the loans provisions already in the Electoral Administration Bill, the detail is great and complex. In the case of Northern Ireland further detailed and technical consideration is necessary before the provisions can be finalised. The scope of the order-making power is restricted in that it only allows the Secretary of State to make provisions which correspond to, or are similar to, those in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and it will, of course, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Further details have been provided in a memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	These are appropriate and necessary amendments to further complete the set of provisions to regulate the giving of loans to political parties. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 78:
	Page 118, line 30, at end insert—
	"In section 24 (office-holders to be registered), in subsection (4), for paragraph (a) substitute—
	"(a) with the provisions of parts 3, 4 and 4A (accounting requirements and control of donations, loans and certain other transactions)"."
	Page 118, line 30, at end insert—
	" In section 27 (financial structure of registered parties: accounting units), in subsection (2)(a) for "Parts III and IV" substitute "Parts 3, 4 and 4A"."
	Page 119, line 19, at end insert—
	"(1) Section 62 (quarterly donation reports) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) "Relevant benefit", in relation to any person and any year, means—
	(a) a relevant donation accepted by the party from that person as a donor, or
	(b) a relevant transaction within the meaning of section 71M(3) entered into by the party and that person as a participant;
	and a relevant benefit accrues when it is accepted (if it is a donation) or entered into (if it is a transaction)."
	(3) In subsection (4)—
	(a) for "donation or donations" (in both places) substitute "benefit or benefits";
	(b) after "this subsection" insert "or section 71M(4)";
	(c) in paragraph (b) for "donations" substitute "benefits".
	(4) In subsection (5), in paragraph (b)—
	(a) for "as part of" substitute "together with any other relevant donation or donations included in";
	(b) for "donation" (in the second place) substitute "benefit";
	(c) for "is accepted" substitute "accrues".
	(5) In subsection (6)—
	(a) for "donation or donations" (in the first four places) substitute "benefit or benefits";
	(b) after "subsection (4)" (in the first place) insert "or section 71M(4)";
	(c) in paragraph (a), for "subsection (4)" substitute "that provision";
	(d) in paragraph (b), after "this subsection" insert "or section 71M(6)";
	(e) for the words following paragraph (b) substitute "any relevant donation falling within subsection (6A)".
	(6) After subsection (6) insert—
	"(6A) A relevant donation falls within this subsection—
	(a) if it is a donation of more than £1,000, or
	(b) if, when it is added to any other relevant benefit or benefits accruing since the time mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b), the aggregate amount of the benefits is more than £1,000."
	(7) In subsection (7)(a), for "donation" (in the first place) substitute "benefit".
	(8) In subsection (7)(b)—
	(a) for "as part of" substitute "together with any other relevant donation or donations included in";
	(b) for "that subsection" substitute "subsection (6A)";
	(c) for "donation" (in the second place) substitute "benefit";
	(d) for "is accepted" substitute "accrues"."
	Page 119, line 22, at end insert—
	"(1) Section 146 (supervisory powers of Commission) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (7) after paragraph (a) (before "or") insert—
	"(aa) a regulated participant (or former regulated participant),".
	(3) In subsection (8), after paragraph (a) (before "or) insert—
	"(aa) such information or explanations relating to the income and expenditure of regulated participants in connection with the political activities as the Commission reasonably require for the purpose of monitoring compliance on the part of regulated participants with the requirements imposed on them by or by virtue of Schedule 7A,".
	(4) In subsection (9), after the definition of "regulated donee" insert—
	"regulated participant" and "political activities" in relation to a regulated participant must be construed in accordance with Schedule 7A;".
	(1) Section 148(6) (general offences) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (a), after "donee" insert "regulated participant".
	(3) In paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
	"(iia) a regulated participant which is a members association,".
	(4) In paragraph (c), after sub-paragraph (iii) insert—
	"(iiia) in relation to a regulated participant which is a members association, the person responsible for the purposes of Schedule 7A,".
	(5) After paragraph (d) insert—
	"(da) "regulated participant" has the same meaning as in Schedule 7A;"."
	Page 119, line 22, at end insert—
	" In Schedule 1 (the Electoral Commission), in paragraph 3(3) (term of office etc of Electoral Commissioners) after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(ca) he is named as a participant in the register of recordable transactions reported under Part 4A;"."
	Page 119, line 22, at end insert—
	"In Schedule 6, after paragraph 5 insert—
	:TITLE3:"Application of reporting requirement
	5A If the requirement to record the donation arises only because the value of the donation has, for the purposes of section 62(4) or (6), been aggregated with the value of any relevant transaction or transactions (within the meaning of section 71M), a quarterly report must contain a statement to that effect.""
	Page 119, line 24, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 2—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (d);
	(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit paragraph (a);
	(c) in sub-paragraph (3) omit "the loan or"."
	Page 119, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 5(4)—
	(a) for "2(1)(d) or (e)" substitute "2(1)(e)";
	(b) in paragraph (a) omit "the loan or";
	(c) in paragraph (a) omit sub-paragraph (i) and "or" following it".
	Page 119, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 10, for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute—
	"(1) A regulated donee must prepare a report under this paragraph in respect of each controlled donation accepted by the donee which is a recordable donation.
	(1A) For the purposes of this paragraph a controlled donation is a recordable donation—
	(a) if it is a donation of more than £5,000 (where the donee is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case);
	(b) if, when it is added to any other controlled benefit or benefits accruing to the donee—
	(i) from the same person and in the same calendar year, and
	(ii) in respect of which no report has been previously made under this paragraph,
	the aggregate amount of the benefits is more than £5,000 (where the donee is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case).
	(1B) A controlled benefit is—
	(a) a controlled donation;
	(b) a controlled transaction within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Schedule 7A.
	(1C) A controlled benefit which is a controlled donation accrues—
	(a) from the permissible donor who made it, and
	(b) when it is accepted by the donee.
	(1D) A controlled benefit which is a controlled transaction accrues—
	(a) from any authorised participant (within the meaning of paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 7A) who is a party to it, and
	(b) when it is entered into;
	and paragraph 9(6) of Schedule 7A applies for the purposes of paragraph (b) above.
	(2) A regulated donee must deliver the report prepared by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) to the Commission within the period of 30 days beginning with—
	(a) if sub-paragraph (1A)(a) applies, the date of acceptance of the donation;
	(b) if sub-paragraph (1A)(b) applies, the date on which the benefit which causes the aggregate amount to exceed £5,000 or (as the case may be) £1,000 accrues."
	( ) In that paragraph, in each of sub-paragraphs (6) and (7)—
	(a) after "In the case of" insert "a controlled benefit which is";
	(b) for "sub-paragraph (2)(b)" substitute "sub-paragraph (1A)(b)";
	(c) for "by the same permissible donor" substitute "from the same person".
	( ) In paragraph 12(1), for "that provision" substitute "paragraph 10(2) or 11(1)"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions on all the issues relating to the Bill which have enabled us to improve it as we send it to another place. I believe that we have found an effective way forward in this difficult issue of carers in the home. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the wording in the revised code of practice will be that there is an expectation that carers will require those whom they employ of behalf of vulnerable adults in the home to be subject to monitoring. The expectation will also be made clear to those who undertake the caring that they will be expected to make themselves subject to monitoring within the scheme. I hope that that will go a long way to meeting the concerns, which I recognise, expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that those making arrangements on behalf of vulnerable adults will have to ask whether the individual is subject to monitoring. In fact, the regime normally applying will be that they have made themselves subject to monitoring.
	I accept that this is a difficult issue of balance which we have had to wrestle with—on the one hand, taking forward a significant tightening-up of the system regarding our expectations of monitoring; and, on the other, the availability of advice to carers that they can and should conduct the CRB checks as appropriate without seeking to criminalise those who are making arrangements often on behalf of family members in their own home.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley asked whether we would keep the issue under review. I can give an undertaking that we will do so. We also intend to share with noble Lords and with colleagues in another place the draft wording that we will put in the code of practice as and when it is available. On that basis, I hope that the amendments will be accepted. These amendments are actually on disqualification orders but, in agreeing to them, I hope noble Lords will also accept our way forward on carers.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I speak to this amendment with considerable optimism in terms of the Minister's reply. I make no apology for returning to this issue again. I made the point in Grand Committee and on Report that to exempt individuals who work with prisoners and those on probation, particularly the young, from monitoring simply does not seem logical. As I said before, we are referring not to hardened criminals but to the significant number of vulnerable adults and young offenders who live in close proximity to those in authority and who are effectively open to abuse in an enclosed environment.
	I am aware that the Minister is taking, and has taken, this matter very seriously, and I am looking forward to his reply in this regard. At this point, perhaps I may say that I am very grateful to the Minister, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for the meeting that we had with both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, yesterday to discuss some of these aspects of the Bill. We were heartened to learn that Ministers had responded. We had asked them to keep working hard with regard to Clause 14 between Report and Third Reading and clearly they have done that. Therefore, we are aware that real progress is being made in this regard, for which we are grateful, and also in relation to other aspects of Clause 14, but obviously I wait to hear the Minister's reply.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for the meeting that we held yesterday and for the way in which he has listened throughout the proceedings on the Bill. That, together with the changes that we have seen, will mean, as the two noble Baronesses have said, that the Bill will leave this House in a much better condition than it was in when it came here.
	However, I must still express—I do so even though I have not tabled an amendment—my considerable ill ease about parts of the list. I have dealt with these kinds of issues in my professional life, and I continue to be anxious about exceptions in situations where, quite frankly and crudely, people who are vulnerable and who do not know how to say no are taking off their clothes and hands are being laid on. We know that that can arise in sporting situations. However, I recognise that the Government have thought this matter through. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I will do all that I can to work with the Government to make their solutions work.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Politics in Northern Ireland over the latter part of the last century was dominated by what were once thought insurmountable differences and divisions. But, albeit slowly, the peace process moved forward. Such progress has occurred through a brave willingness of those across the political spectrum to acknowledge that the need for accommodation does not mean turning away from principle.
	This is a decisive moment in the Northern Ireland political process and a moment of promise: the promise of a better future through the restoration of locally accountable government in Northern Ireland. The rewards are plainly within reach, if that bravery can be demonstrated once again.
	Much of what was contested is now firmly agreed—most crucially, the principle of consent, the superiority of devolved government over direct rule and the necessity of fair and equitable power-sharing. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is served best when the police service has the whole community behind it because the whole community is in it. There is agreement that Northern Ireland must be free from the fear of paramilitary activity and criminality, and that the rule of law must apply. There is also agreement that common-sense north/south co-operation is of great mutual benefit. I have cited examples of disease control in food production and animals and things like that many times in this House; we have an example in the Bill, which I will come to shortly.
	The Government have clearly set out the path ahead. The Prime Minister has set 2006 as the year of progress for Northern Ireland. To that end, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Peter Hain, recalled the Assembly on 15 May with the express purpose of electing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and establishing a power-sharing Executive. This was a vital stepping stone in the journey towards full restoration.
	Obviously, we are not yet at the point at which the parties are ready to form an Executive. That is why we have arranged for a preparation for government committee to be set up within the Assembly. Its initial task, in advance of intensive talks at the end of this month, will be to scope the work that the parties believe needs to be done to set up Government again in Northern Ireland. We have also indicated that if there is cross-party consensus on changes to the Belfast agreement that would prove necessary prior to full restoration, the Government stand ready to legislate further.
	The current arrangements are obviously not sustainable in the face of long-term failure to elect a Northern Ireland government. That is why in the previous legislation—the Northern Ireland Act—an absolute deadline of 24 November has been set. It has been set in primary legislation, and if the clock strikes midnight on that day, that is it. There cannot be any last minute deal to fix it on the 25th. After that point, if we do not have an Executive, MLAs' salaries and allowances will be cancelled and devolution will be put on hold until a clear political will for devolution re-emerges. As the Prime Minister said,
	"we close the chapter or close the book",
	and, as we have said before, we would have to take a very serious look at the direct rule arrangements.
	But closing the book would be a poor second best. It is second best to have part-time, commuting direct-rule Ministers who cannot be hands-on. They have to be second best to locally elected politicians carrying out their responsibilities. Having been elected, they have a duty to do so. We will do all we can to facilitate dialogue between the parties to achieve restoration. We will not stand in their way. We have made it absolutely clear that we have no plan to delay restoration. Whether it is August, September or October, as soon as the parties are ready, we will facilitate the steps to restoration of devolved government. But I emphasise that it is for the parties themselves to take the final, crucial step towards power-sharing.
	The Bill, as is clear from its title, covers a number of policy objectives. For the most part, they have a single unifying theme, which is preparing Northern Ireland for the many and various challenges that lie ahead and ensuring that there are no legislative obstacles in the way of devolution. Chiefly, the Bill will allow for maximum flexibility in the arrangements for the future devolution of policing and justice functions to the Assembly. Ultimately, responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland should lie with Northern Ireland Ministers accountable to a local Assembly elected by the people of Northern Ireland. That was envisaged in the Belfast agreement and the structure of the devolution settlement set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The British Government have repeated on many occasions our clear commitment to devolve those functions when the time is right. However, the Bill does not devolve policing and justice. Instead, it supports the framework we need to put in place to devolve policing and justice by order when, and not before, the circumstances are right to do so. The Bill strengthens the safeguards that apply to the future devolution of policing and justice, requiring the agreement of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the parallel consent of unionist and nationalist Members of the Assembly before devolution can happen. Of course, the Government and Parliament would also have to agree.
	The Bill also provides some alternative departmental models from which the Assembly can choose the arrangements it wants to put in place to receive these new functions: whether to have one department or two, for instance. That decision will be a matter for the Assembly, though the Government will need to be convinced that the proposed arrangements are robust, workable and broadly supported by the parties. Finally, the Bill updates the framework of the 1998 Act to take account of some subsequent UK-wide developments, such as the introduction of the European arrest warrant for dealing with extradition between member states.
	The first part of the Bill deals with elections. There are a number of provisions concerned with the democratic process. The provisions on electoral registration and political donations are key to moving Northern Ireland forward. We want to modernise still further the registration arrangements in Northern Ireland, safeguarding the dramatic improvements in the accuracy of the register, but making sure that as many people as possible are registered to vote. In allowing us to do this, the registration clauses of the Bill go to the heart of increasing trust and engagement in the democratic process. The reforms to the rules on political donations will also work to increase public confidence by injecting greater openness into party funding and setting Northern Ireland firmly on the road to complete transparency.
	Similarly, the decommissioning clause is aimed at taking the peace process a step further. The full decommissioning of IRA weapons, independently verified, was, of course, welcome and highly significant. But there is much more to do. We want to see all loyalist weapons decommissioned and also those of dissident republicans. The Bill will ensure that the amnesty scheme stays in place for a further three years to facilitate that process.
	The Bill also contains important provisions dealing with energy, which are designed to help prepare Northern Ireland for the future. The creation of a single wholesale electricity market on the island of Ireland will bring consumer benefits, while also enhancing the security and diversity of electricity supplies for both north and south. The industry and business communities in Northern Ireland support this for the simple reason that a single market makes sound economic sense. It is also common sense. Renewable sources and sustainable development policies are particularly important for Northern Ireland where currently more than 99 per cent of primary energy requirements come from imported fossil fuels. The Bill will place a statutory duty on individual government departments and district councils to work in accordance with sustainable development principles.
	Let me highlight the remaining provisions of the Bill briefly, because we will have plenty of time to go over them in Committee. Clause 22 increases the threshold that the Northern Ireland Executive can borrow from the National Loans Fund, in effect, extending the Executive's overdraft limit. In particular, this will facilitate a massive increase in infrastructure investment.
	Clause 26 and Schedule 3 extend to Northern Ireland the investigatory powers of the DPP provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The creation of these new powers for Northern Ireland will provide investigators and prosecutors with additional weapons to tackle the serious ongoing problem of serious organised crime on a UK-wide basis.
	Clause 27 will provide corporation sole status to the office of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. This will extend to Northern Ireland similar arrangements that already exist for chief police officers in Great Britain, so that any prosecution in relation to breaches of health and safety at work legislation will ordinarily be brought against the office of the chief constable rather than against the individual office holder.
	Finally, Clause 28 will place a duty on relevant Ministers to fill judicial vacancies in Northern Ireland in line with the arrangements in place in England and Wales, except where the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland agrees that a particular vacancy may remain unfilled. The aim is to remove any perception that Ministers could use the filling of judicial vacancies to place pressure on the judiciary and influence its independence.
	The reforms in the Bill will help to sustain a different and welcome environment in Northern Ireland. The picture is not perfect—no one is claiming that—but we have to make progress. The only way to make progress is by devolved government with locally elected politicians. The situation in Northern Ireland is transformed from where we were 10, or five, years ago. Considerable progress has been made in the past 12 months. We need to step up to the challenges and opportunities that this new environment presents. Political leaders in all walks of life need to show vision, courage and commitment to their own goals.
	Restoration of the devolved institutions remains the goal and Northern Ireland's politicians need to take the final steps forward. As I have said, it is their duty as elected politicians to seek to pull the levers of power. It is the only part of the world where people get elected and do not seem to want to adjust and pull the levers of power. To that extent, we want to make it easy for them. The Bill is part of that process. We want to restore devolved Government on a stable and lasting basis, and we genuinely believe that this legislation will help to prepare the way. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for taking us through the details of this Bill with his usual clarity. I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, to his first debate on Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House. I very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord in his maiden speech.
	As the Minister made clear, this Bill deals with a wide range of issues, some of which we may stretch even further in Committee, that are important to the future of Northern Ireland, including electoral matters, party funding and the possible creation of an all-Ireland wholesale electricity market. We shall of course be able to examine each of these issues in detail in Committee, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Official Opposition will have some important amendments to table, especially on the party funding and electoral registration.
	I intend to confine my comments to what I and the noble Lord consider to be the heart of the Bill and, at the same time, easily its most important element. Part 5 makes provisions for the devolution of policing and justice functions to a new Northern Ireland Executive. It does not bring about devolution, nor does it contain the mechanism for triggering it. As I understand it, that is set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, under which policing and justice are reserved matters. Under that Act they can only become "transferred" by order of the Secretary of State following a resolution of the Assembly passed on a cross-community vote, as clearly outlined by the Minister today.
	That procedure remains unaffected by this Bill, which I welcome. In no circumstances should policing and justice become devolved unless and until the Assembly—with cross-community support—requests it. That will itself only be possible once the Northern Ireland parties involved in the current negotiations have agreed on what is known in the current jargon as the "modalities", including institutional models. Indeed, in our view this is one of the issues on which the success of the current initiative ultimately hinges.
	The Bill is intended to facilitate devolution by enabling the Executive to put in place arrangements for ministerial appointments to a new department, or departments, of policing and justice without the need for further primary legislation to amend the 1998 Act. It is therefore a small change but, in the wider scheme of things, of potentially huge significance.
	I accept that the eventual devolution of policing and justice was clearly envisaged in the Belfast agreement and endorsed by the Patten commission. It has subsequently been reiterated in the 2003 British/Irish joint declaration, and in the proposals for a comprehensive agreement published by the British and Irish Governments in December 2004. In addition, it is accepted, admittedly with varying degrees of enthusiasm, by all the main Northern Ireland parties—including, I understand, by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, when he served as First Minister in the Assembly.
	The Conservative Party, too, is supportive in principle of devolving policing and justice, but—and I suspect that this point will be strongly shared by noble Lords from Northern Ireland, most of whom sadly are unable to be here this evening at this late hour—it can only happen when the circumstances are right and with the strongest possible safeguards. Essentially, that means that the Assembly must have shown itself to be stable and durable and—crucially—when all political parties in Northern Ireland that aspire to serve in the Executive give their unequivocal support to the police and the criminal justice system.
	That is clearly not the case today. As the US Special Envoy, Mitchell Reiss, has made clear, Sinn Fein remains the only political party in western Europe that still refuses to support the police. It does not recognise the courts. As recently as the McCartney murder only last year, we have seen how Sinn Fein/IRA manages to place an iron grip around the communities in which it operates to thwart police investigations. The graffiti along the Short Strand area of east Belfast said it all: "Whatever you say, say nothing". Most recently, the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, described a certain notorious figure in South Armagh, whose farm was the subject of a joint PSNI/Garda operation, as,
	"not a criminal but a good republican who supports the peace process".
	The clear implication remains that any activity sanctioned by the republican leadership, or the so-called IRA Army Council, does not constitute a crime.
	It is against the background of such events that unionists are being asked to consider the possibility of a Sinn Fein Minister of Policing and Justice, when most of their experiences of Sinn Fein justice have been the bomb, the bullet and the baseball bat. The onus is on Sinn Fein to change.
	The Independent Monitoring Commission, in paragraph 2.19 of its most recent report, stated its view that the Sinn Fein
	"leadership has accepted the need to engage in policing if it is to achieve its aim of devolution of policing and justice to an Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland".
	But it went on to say that:
	"It has not however yet determined how this might be delivered. The issue is still very controversial on the ground and has not been resolved to date within PIRA despite robust discussion".
	Until that matter is resolved, there can be no question of policing and justice being devolved. It would simply not be accepted by the people who live there and it would certainly not pass a cross-community vote in the Assembly.
	Let me make one thing very clear. Supporting the police should not be equated with taking up seats on the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the district policing partnerships. It requires more than that; it requires an ideological shift, in which republicans urge people within their communities to work with the police, to report crime to the police and to join the police. There can be no equivocation about this as far as my party is concerned.
	There are three further points. First, any form of devolution of policing and justice must preserve fully the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the basic tripartite structure of policing as it exists throughout the United Kingdom. There can be no question of ever going back to a situation such as existed in Northern Ireland prior to 1970 when the Minister of Home Affairs could effectively direct the police.
	Secondly, the independence of the judiciary must be upheld by all Ministers. For that reason, I can see no reason why the Government in the other place rejected our amendments making it a requirement of holding office in the Executive for a Minister to pledge to support the police and uphold the rule of law. I give notice now to the Government that this is an issue to which we shall want to return and on which we may well want to test the opinion of this House at a later stage.
	Thirdly, we agree with the Government and the Patten commission that national security and intelligence matters must not be devolved but must be the responsibility of the Security Service—MI5—and politically of the United Kingdom Government at Westminster—this Government.
	I am firmly of the view that resolving the policing issue is absolutely fundamental if the current attempt to restore devolution to Northern Ireland stands any chance of success by the Government's target date of 24 November. We wish that initiative well. We want to see a proper, fully functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland that is accountable to the electorate. But it will not happen if we kid ourselves into thinking that we can have Ministers who do not back the police.
	Furthermore, although the small loyalist parties will not be in a position to qualify for the ministerial positions due to their lack of support, it should not absolve them of their responsibilities to persuade the loyalist paramilitaries to end their criminal activities and disarm. Their activities are both abhorrent and a blight on their communities.
	The Bill is intended to encourage republicans to support the police by facilitating the devolution of policing and justice. The proposals for a comprehensive agreement in December 2004 made clear that the Government envisaged the process beginning once the legislation was given Royal Assent. I should be grateful if, during his winding-up speech, the Minister would reaffirm that that is the Government's clear understanding of the Sinn Fein position.
	There are many other issues in the Bill that we will address in Committee. In principle, we do not have any major problems but, as so often, the devil may be in the detail. There are certainly a number of issues which we shall want to address as the Bill proceeds about which I have not spoken tonight.
	In principle, we wish the Bill well and support the process.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trimble. I am sure that his experience in Northern Ireland will greatly enhance our deliberations when we discuss the business of Northern Ireland in this House.
	Broadly speaking, we welcome the Bill. We support the principles behind it. We have some concern about the intention in Clause 1 to introduce anonymous registration in Northern Ireland to mirror Clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill. That would allow an elector to register anonymously if he feared that his safety or that of another person in his home was at risk if he were identifiable from the electoral register. Given the changing threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we feel that the number of people for whom that provision may be necessary will be small and will decrease over time. We are concerned about how the Government intend to achieve that. The clause allows the Secretary of State, through an Order in Council, to achieve anonymous registration. In another place, the Minister gave some explanation of why it was not possible simply to extend the current provisions of the Electoral Administration Bill to Northern Ireland. We are concerned that Northern Ireland will not be able to benefit from that proposal at the same time as people in England and Wales. Can the Minister tell the House when the Government intend to lay the Order in Council before Parliament?
	We are very disappointed at the Government's intention to abolish the annual canvass, which was introduced in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The annual canvass has proven to be successful in Northern Ireland. The introduction of individual registration with personal identifiers in Northern Ireland has led to a much more accurate and robust electoral register than those compiled under the system of household registration. Currently, 1,162,492 people are on the register, which is an estimated 91 per cent of the voting-aged population. We understand the Government's concern at the continued decline in the number of people registering. We must ensure that the procedures are not so onerous as to discourage people from registering; but we fear that by extending the period of time between canvasses to 10 years, the Government have back-pedalled far too far.
	Can the Minister explain why a period of 10 years was chosen? Would it not be more sensible to have a shorter period of, say, four years, to ensure that the registers are comprehensive in advance of Assembly elections? The system of individual registration has worked in Northern Ireland; it would be wrong to undermine it now.
	We are also most disappointed by the provisions of Part 3. Although that part aligns donations in Northern Ireland more closely with those in England, Scotland and Wales, it does not achieve full transparency. Northern Ireland political parties and regulated donees will continue to be exempt from the full donation controls until October 2007, after which they will be required to comply with most of Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. From November 2007 until 2010, the measures will require Northern Ireland parties only to submit donation returns to the Electoral Commission confidentially.
	We fully appreciate that concerns still remain about the publication of the names of donors in Northern Ireland and their safety. The new measures are a step in the right direction, but can the Minister guarantee that full disclosure will be achieved by 2010? We are still concerned about extending the categories of permissible donors. In 2000, when the Political Parties and Referendums Act was passing through Parliament, we recognised that, in the absence of any similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, it would be somewhat ineffective to include Northern Ireland in the ban on receiving foreign donations, as parties that operated on an all-Ireland basis could receive such donations through their offices in the Republic. We agreed to the exemption of Northern Ireland from those provisions on the express condition that the Government would urgently seek to persuade the Government of Ireland to introduce similar legislation, or to find some way to exclude parties that also operate in Northern Ireland from their funding arrangements.
	We are still unclear about the funding arrangements in the Republic, and I should be grateful if the Minister could explain them for the benefit of the House. After all, given the public concern over party donations in Great Britain, it is difficult to understand why Northern Ireland parties are to be excused from similar scrutiny. The Electoral Commission also has concerns about the provisions. Its view is that:
	"it is difficult to achieve openness and transparency with such a regime".
	The commission has stated that it would like the regime to be clarified in the Bill and has accordingly asked for a clear definition of the acceptable tests of Irish citizenship so that recipients of donations can check the permissibility of donors. Will the Minister take on board those concerns and accordingly table amendments in Committee?
	I now turn to Part 4, which deals with arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice matters to the Assembly. We Liberal Democrats are a devolutionary party. It has been our party policy for a number of years to devolve those functions to the Assembly. We welcome the clauses that will enable policing and justice arrangements to be devolved in any form that the Assembly chooses. We are further pleased about the reassurances that the Government gave in another place about how and when such functions will be devolved.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, it is vital that such functions are transferred only when the Assembly is stable and we can be confident that it will remain so for the long-term. However, we have some concerns about the detail of how nominations to that ministerial office will occur. We will table amendments in Committee to clarify the situation.
	Clause 25, which was introduced on Report in another place, places a duty on public authorities to act in a way that contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. We welcome that provision; it is an aim that we support. However, another duty should be placed on public authorities. That is to act in a way that contributes to the achievement of the aims of A Shared Future. We welcome the Government's publication of the first triennial action plan—it is a start—but we were disappointed that, although the Government have been ambitious in their environmental aims, they seem not to have been so ambitious as to promote sharing over separation in every department.
	I am most grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made reference to the progress that we hope to be achieved in the negotiations between the Northern Ireland parties and the two Governments about the restoration of an Executive. After all, that is central to some of the provisions of the Bill. Progress is important because it will inform the attitude of those of us on these Benches to the variety of orders that will be laid before the House during the next few weeks.
	I conclude by saying that I am aware that the usual channels arranged the time for this debate, but it is very unfortunate that we have a Second Reading debate on these important issues so late in the evening. It happens too frequently that Northern Ireland business is given the fag-end of the day, especially on Second Reading. I hope that, in future, we contrive to give greater priority to such legislation.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, I feel that I should say a few words in explanation of the haste with which I am making this speech. There are two reasons. The first is that, as my noble friend Lord Maginnis has pointed out, a number of extremely important issues concerning Northern Ireland are coming up in which I wish to participate fully. But there is a second and more trivial reason, which is that I could not resist the temptation of repeating in this House my record in another place, where I made my maiden speech the day after I took my seat. Having said that, may I say that I am delighted to be here and that I have been quite overwhelmed by the warmth and kindness so many have extended to me on my arrival. There is no doubt that this is a kinder, gentler place.
	I have no doubt, however, of the wealth of talent and experience that exists collectively among your Lordships, of the opportunities here to influence the public debate and, on occasions, to make a real change to the legislation that comes before us. I had the pleasure of sitting through that happening earlier this evening. Of course it is not entirely the fault of colleagues in another place that Parliament has become less effective. Big majorities are not good for Parliament, and the way in which the number and the range of issues in public debate have diminished has also had an effect. Changes in procedures have tipped the balance against effective scrutiny. Here I am thinking particularly of automatic guillotines and the changed hours of sitting that have taken place elsewhere. All that has made the work of this House more significant and I look forward to participating in debates and votes that really matter.
	Tonight we are considering the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. There are so many matters in it on which one could comment, many of them mentioned by other noble Lords, but I should like to focus on one main issue and to raise a query on another. The query relates to a disturbing story in the press yesterday with regard to political fund raising. The story suggested that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is pressing the US Government to allow leading members of Sinn Fein to raise funds in the United States. If this is true, it would undermine the admirable position that the United States Government have adopted. It would also be contrary to the basic principles of the 2000 Act on political donations. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to comment on this matter.
	The main issue I wish to touch on has been raised already—that is, the question of devolution. This is clearly still the Government's policy, as evidenced by this Bill, the speech we have heard today and the current recall of the Assembly at Stormont. In principle, I welcome the recall. Giving politicians a status as elected Assembly Members without also giving them responsibilities is bad in principle and bad in practice. In saying that, I make no reflection on individual Assembly Members, of which I am one. But the existence of a notional Assembly which discharges no function could not be continued.
	The problem comes with the way in which one defines the objectives and their priorities at the moment. Is the primary objective to re-establish an Executive—preferably on an inclusive basis—or is the objective to have in Northern Ireland a society which functions normally? Eight years ago we began what we hoped would be a fairly rapid transition to normality and we created an inclusive Executive to facilitate and accelerate that transition. Enormous progress was made. But it is equally clear that the transition was not and still has not been completed.
	It was in October 2002 that the Prime Minister, in what is probably still the best speech he has made on the matter, called for the completion of that transition. The chief outstanding matter, of course, is policing. What is outstanding is not the devolution of policing—which was scarcely mentioned in the Belfast agreement back in April 1998—but the acceptance of the present policing arrangements, which have been put in place with much heart-searching and no little amount of pain to unionists and the police family in the years since 1998, and that acceptance has been clearly demonstrated by real support for the police.
	I hope leaders of the republican movement realise the need to move rapidly and decisively on this issue. I hope they recall the promise they made to my party in May 2000 when they said that they would act,
	"in a way that would maximise public confidence".
	I think they know that the great failing in the years after that date was in not building that confidence in those with whom they must have wanted to build a relationship.
	I hope the Government are holding clearly to the principles set out in the Belfast harbour office speech back in 2002 and that their priority is to put in place a normally functioning society in Northern Ireland as a means to create an inclusive administration which can then, perhaps at a later date, enhance devolution in the way that this Bill foreshadows.
	I put matters in this way not to create more obstacles—for I have in recent years put in a huge effort to see all the main sections of our society working together, and that is still my aim—but because I know the problems and I want to see them overcome. I know how important it is to stick clearly to the fundamental principles of the agreement, which are in turn the basic principles of democracy, non-violence and social cohesion.

Lord Laird: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to follow the outstanding maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who was for many years my political leader. He led the Ulster Unionist Party and Ulster through important and eventful times. I am strongly of the view that the noble Lord played a vital role in the peace process but was let down by others in the operation of the agreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is well known throughout the world. He was a Member of the other place for 15 years. In 1998, he was awarded the Nobel peace prize, along with John Hume. In 1999 he became Northern Ireland's First Minister, a position he held off and on for three years. To date, he has been the only First Minister. I am confident that the noble Lord will be a major asset to your Lordships' House and I look forward with other noble Lords to his many contributions.
	I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill, which is clearly important if there is to be any serious attempt to bring devolved government to Northern Ireland. I acknowledge the work of the Government in attempting to start the Assembly. The task is most definitely uphill. This is not 1999—things have moved on—and the Belfast agreement is no longer a fresh document. We have witnessed the failure to implement the agreement by both Sinn Fein and by the Irish Government. There is a resultant lack of sympathy for the agreement within the unionist community. Trust has all but gone—and without it there is no hope of devolution as per the agreement. Perhaps we unionists are wiser and more careful people now. Certainly, those of us who tried to make the agreement work and to build trust were let down time and time again by the Northern Ireland Office and its supporters in local departments.
	The whole machinery of cross-border bodies, in which I have a close interest, has not produced anything to the betterment of the unionist population—quite the opposite. Let us take as an example Intertrade Ireland, a body of which few have heard and which consumes public funds without result. In the top four grades of management of the body, Protestant employees hold only 15 per cent of the posts. In the top two grades, no posts at all are held by Protestants. This is bad enough, but the remaining few Protestants have now complained to the Secretary of State that they are under pressure to leave.
	Much of this Bill is about the transfer of policing and justice to a devolved Assembly. The House will not be surprised to learn that considerable concern is felt about the idea of having a Sinn Fein MLA in charge of anything in the area of policing and justice.
	The republican campaign to blacken the name of the loyal order stands as a monument to its sectarian, mono-cultural approach. Before the 1990s, loyal order parades, which are part of the unionist tradition, were not the focus of violent campaigns on the street or elsewhere. It is interesting to note that only four Orange halls were attacked and destroyed from 1969 to 1989. From 1990 to date, despite the ceasefire and the peace process, 240 halls have been destroyed.
	The leaders of all the loyal orders deserve much credit for their leadership in difficult times and for keeping their institutions together in a positive way. I praise in particular the historic meeting this week between the leadership of the Orange Order, the Independent Orange Order and the Royal Black Institution and the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. I understand that to have been a most successful meeting, and it should be supported by all right-thinking people.
	I support the section in the Bill which deals with sustainable development, but I would urge further action. I would ask the Government to include in the provisions a requirement for public authorities to adopt the concept of fair trade. Fair trade guarantees a better deal for workers and farmers in poor countries around the world. By becoming the world's first fair trade country, Northern Ireland would show that it is supporting a progressive alternative and promoting the interest of workers and farmers across the world—a first for Northern Ireland. Fair trade ensures a better deal for workers and small-scale farmers in poor countries. Farmers are paid a just and stable price for their crops, and workers are guaranteed decent and safe working conditions and fair wages. Fair trade producers also receive an additional premium that can be invested in social projects or business development. Across the Province, thousands of individuals, organisations and business are already choosing to use or sell fair trade. In July 2005, Belfast became the first fair trade city. Queen's University became the country's first fair trade university in February 2006. Ballymoney Borough Council is working towards fair trade status. The Assembly Commission at Stormont has adopted a fair trade policy and churches across the country have become fair trade churches.
	In the Government's attempts to restart the Executive, Ministers should remember that trying to force anyone to do anything against their will in Ulster is totally counter-productive. Adding to the resolve of the majority is any suggestion of a secret deal done with Sinn Fein. Such a cloud hangs over the Government's proposal for a national stadium at the Maze. This project, with which HMG seem determined to continue, has no support outside the Maze area, and that includes the three major sporting organisations. Belfast City Council is proposing a stadium in the city and Linfield Football Club has been promised more funding to upgrade Windsor Park, yet the Government seem determined to press ahead with the ill-thought-out and unpopular proposal to build a massive stadium, including a celebration of terrorism in the form of a preserved part of the Maze prison, at public expense. This white elephant will soak up money and be a blister on the face of the Province.
	The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Belfast has been spinning against me in relation to the Maze project, even about the contents of my remarks tonight. DCAL, which is not noted for activity which would be fair to the non-Irish community, has a record of spinning against me. Its problem is that I know the names of those involved and how they operate. If they do not stop and return to being fair, even-handed civil servants, I will name them in your Lordships' House.
	The Bill includes much about policing. We are told about the need for a new start for our police service. In the changed circumstances, there is something in that argument. A new start means a new state-of-the-art policing college, or so we were told. The present accommodation is totally inadequate. Now we have been informed by HMG that the proposal for a new college in Cookstown is too expensive and that the state-of-the-art college may not be built.
	In the Northern Ireland Grand Committee of 6 February 2003, the then Minister in charge of policing said:
	"I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurance that on Patten's recommendations regarding the policing college, resources are not the issue".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/03; col. GC005.]
	The Government have tried to suggest that the cost of the new college has become too much without their knowledge and so can no longer be supported. Yet at page 89 of the annual report of the Office of the Oversight Commissioner, which I received only yesterday, reference is made to a tripartite project board, which includes the police service, the Policing Board and the Government—so HMG did know. How is it that the Government have plenty of funding to supply to the Maze project but only a limited amount when it comes to a new police college for a new beginning? What is the average citizen of Northern Ireland to make of that? What Sinn Fein/IRA wants, it gets, and the facts are distorted to suit the case, but what the police require is a problem, and again the facts are distorted—Alice in Wonderland, indeed.
	I shall return to a number of these issues with appropriate amendments in Committee.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, on his excellent maiden speech and his contribution to this Northern Ireland debate. I am only sorry that, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said, because of the timing of the debate, we have only 10 noble Lords present to hear that speech and to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland. I hope that those who are responsible for the business of the House will address that issue as we discuss the Bill in the months ahead.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for introducing the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I am sorry that he is leaving Northern Ireland. He called a spade a spade. Whether you dug with the left foot or the right foot, he certainly knew what a spade was. That is what we like in Northern Ireland—people who are frank and to the point.
	I wish to comment on one or two issues that were mentioned, and one or two that were not. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to what the Belfast agreement had achieved and to the Bill's objectives. He mentioned the principle of consent, but he did not really spell it out. However, the Belfast agreement spelt it out—that Northern Ireland's constitutional position is as part of the United Kingdom, which means that it is British, and that that cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. It is always important for the Government to give that reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland and not to slip over it quickly by simply saying that the principle of consent existed.
	The noble Lord stressed the importance of north-south co-operation and, of course, he is right, but he totally avoided—as did the Secretary of State at Second Reading in the other place—mentioning that there was a third strand in the Belfast agreement; namely, east-west arrangements. That was what we unionists wanted. The nationalists wanted north-south arrangements, but why does the noble Lord ignore what the unionists wanted, even though it was written into the Belfast agreement? I hope that he will underline the importance of further east-west co-operation in the months ahead.
	As regards strand one, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, mentioned that the two governments wanted to see devolution. We should be very careful about the way we express that. There were three strands to the Belfast agreement. Strand one was about devolution; strand two was about north-south arrangements; and strand three was about east-west arrangements. In strand one the Dublin Government were excluded from all talks. They should not at this stage become involved in anything to do with the creation of devolution for Northern Ireland at Stormont. That must be underlined by all parties if we are going to succeed.
	Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the full decommissioning of IRA arms. We all accept—and it is good news—that there was substantial decommissioning, but no one has yet been able to confirm that there was full decommissioning. Indeed, the latest report of the Independent Monitoring Commission suggested that there may still be some arms in the hands of members of the Provisional IRA.
	I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about policing but I must remind him that the Minister of Home Affairs at Stormont did not run the police. That was an unfortunate contribution on behalf of the Conservative Party. I assure the noble Lord, as a former Minister of Home Affairs, that I had no say in the day to day running of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; that was a matter for the Inspector General, who was subsequently retitled the Chief Constable. I hope that the Conservatives will not repeat such an error.

Lord Laird: My Lords, if the Irish Rugby Football Union, the Irish Football Association and the GAA support the proposed new stadium at the Maze, is it possible to see the documentation in which they say that they support it? I have never seen that documentation. In fact, the word from the Irish Football Association is that it does not support the stadium, but it is going along with the project at this point in time because it owes money to Windsor Park. It is hard to see how the GAA is going to have any games in Northern Ireland when it can make more money having games either in Croke Park or Clones. The rugby people simply say that they want nothing to do with it. I also put on record that the proposal is not supported by the leadership of the four parties. The councillors of all parties on Belfast City Council are unanimous that they want Northern Ireland's national stadium to be in the city.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, only has a total of four minutes to speak. Therefore, interventions on speakers in the gap are really quite unreasonable.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: Unfortunately, my Lords.
	I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, to our Northern Ireland debates; I am sure that he will find them refreshing. I congratulate him on an excellent and measured maiden speech, and we on these Benches look forward very much to hearing from him on future occasions.
	Although the Bill covers a lot of ground, as we have heard from noble Lords, I reiterate that we welcome it and we broadly support its principles. The introduction of anonymous registration, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, gives us some concern. Again, I hope that it will not be necessary to introduce it for too many people. This measure, and others, will be brought into force by the laying of an order. As the Minister said at the outset, we look forward so much to the day when the Assembly will deal with all these matters. It might have been better to include Northern Ireland in the Electoral Administration Bill, which has just passed through your Lordships' House, instead of having to do all this by order, once again bringing Northern Ireland in as a sort of afterthought. Can the Minister tell us the reasoning behind that?
	Northern Ireland has benefited from individual registration with personal identifiers, which has proved much more robust than the previous system of household registration. However, how to encourage more people into voting will be a problem for us all to address. The 10 years proposed between canvasses is far too long, especially as the annual canvass has proved so successful, a point made by my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton.
	We are very disappointed on Part 3, which is on donation controls. It is understandable that concerns exist, and will probably do so for some time, around the publication of donors in Northern Ireland, but the Bill still does not achieve full transparency, which is regrettable. The various parties in Northern Ireland will be exempt, as we have heard, from full donation controls until October 2007, and then there is the interim period between 2007 and 2010 when measures will allow the parties to submit their donation returns in confidence. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that full disclosure will be achieved by 2010, as asked for by my noble friend.
	On Clause 12, the new insertion of special provision in connection with Northern Ireland, I simply say that if we cannot encourage the same legislation in the Republic of Ireland, how do the Government believe that putting a ban on receiving foreign donations in Northern Ireland will work? Unless and until we can agree comparable legislation across borders, that provision is likely to be meaningless. Openness and transparency is so important a principle to embed into this sort of legislation, and I hope that the Minister will address concerns of noble Lords on this matter, if not this evening then perhaps during further stages on the Bill.
	Part 4, which is on devolution of policing and justice matters to the Assembly, is certainly something that these Benches support. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Government gave reassurances about how and when such functions would be devolved. It would be very helpful if the Minister were able to repeat them here in such a manner, for completeness. Such transfer of these matters can clearly take place only when the Assembly is running properly and confidence is being restored on a genuine basis. Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea about how the person nominated to be head of the department will be chosen. The Explanatory Notes from paragraph 75 onwards relating to the issue are not terribly clear to me. There appear to be three possible options for choosing the person to head the department, and it is rather confusing and complex, notwithstanding the Minister's explanation. As my noble friend intimated, perhaps amendments need to be tabled at a later stage to tease out the detail. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made strong representation on the devolution of policing, and I am sure that further examination of that part of the Bill will be a major part of our deliberations in Committee.
	Part 5 contains further miscellaneous provisions, in a miscellaneous provisions Bill—an extension of the amnesty period for arms decommissioning to 2010, an enormous increase in the limit of loans applicable to the consolidated fund of Northern Ireland, and suddenly the emergence of a single wholesale electricity market provision for the whole island of Ireland. It is quite a collection of disparate policy objectives. We support the energy proposal, which is extremely important. Energy is becoming a very hot political potato, and we wish that part of the Bill every success. We welcome the clause on sustainable development, but it seems an odd place to put the provision in the Bill. It is an afterthought, when it ought to be embedded in the whole culture of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, made the commendable suggestion of the inclusion of fair trade in this part of the Bill.
	Then we are back to dealing with crime and the extension of SOCAP, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. Those provisions are welcome and will, I hope, begin to eradicate those levels of crime in Northern Ireland that give us all cause for concern. We support those measures.
	Clause 28 brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the country as regards the part of SOCAP that deals with health and safety matters. It is right that it is the office and not the person of the Chief Constable which holds the responsibility for health and safety matters within the PSNI. I well remember the hours of deep discussion of how police officers should deal with health and safety matters when a Bill first included them a number of years ago. Some very silly arguments were put forward at that time about who would be responsible for dealing with breaches of the Act. I am glad that sense prevailed. I am sure that it will continue to do so in Northern Ireland should any of these matters be brought forward.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the contributions that have been made. I decided that I would wait until after the maiden speech before I commented on it. I share all the comments made by noble Lords about it. In a short, succinct maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, showed why he is a political leader of standing. I look forward to his contributions in this House. He has been particularly helpful, and I still have a modest amount of responsibility for answering for the Northern Ireland Office. His contribution has been unique. There is no one else in either of the Houses of Parliament who can speak as someone who experienced devolution at that time and at that level. I pay tribute to his work then and I thank him for his speech tonight. I shall do my best to answer his questions. His speech was valuable to the House and I am sure that it will be read by other Members.
	I apologise for the late timing of this debate. The business managers—of whom I am not one—made the decision some weeks ago to hold this debate. We can never forecast whether there will be a Statement—and we, the Government, cannot forecast whether that Statement will be repeated in your Lordships' House. I regret the late timing of this debate. However, this Bill will get a good deal of scrutiny in Grand Committee, assuming that the Motion for it to be considered there is passed—and later on the Floor of the House. So, there is no part of the Bill that will not be debated and I am certain that a substantial attendance in Grand Committee may surpass that for the Animal Welfare Bill that I experienced last week.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and all other Members for their broad support. There are some issues to be addressed and it is right that we make the position clear. Regarding the operational independence of the police, which the noble Lord raised, it goes without saying—which means that you need to say it—that that must be protected along with the independence of the judiciary. That is absolutely fundamental. I shall address the noble Lord's more detailed comments in a moment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, mentioned areas where there are some doubts. I understand that, but the hour is late. I can answer virtually every one of his doubts and I shall be more than happy to do that at greater length in Committee. It looks as if the abolition of the annual canvass might be a bad idea, but no one mentioned the access to other streams of information that will be available to the electoral registration officer—access to rating bills, housing transfers and other issues.
	There are many other ways to keep on track that are not always available to electoral registration officers in England. It is not as though there will be a snapshot in time and then nothing is done for 10 years, except on a voluntary basis. There will be active searching out of groups of people who are thought to be unregistered. Those will include transient populations. An annual canvass might be out, but that does not mean that you do not check houses in multiple occupation, for example, because we know that there is a transient population which might lose the right to vote. I am sure that we will have a good debate on political donations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred to A Shared Future. I did not ask for advice on this because I want to deal with the issue in Grand Committee. His comments should be followed up, although it is not my role to suggest amendments. That is a fundamental document, but it was published when the general election had just been announced. I do not suggest that it disappeared because the Secretary of State, I and other Ministers have gone out of our way in the past 12 months to imbue its language, culture and philosophy in the changes that we make, such as in local government structure. I look forward to discussing that further in Committee.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, gave the game away when he said that primary legislation does not come along very often but that when it does he will take full advantage of it. He then spoke about virtually everything except the Bill. I do not blame him for that; if I were in his position, I would do exactly the same. There is a bone of contention with those who do not like using Orders in Council—rightly so—as a way of legislating. I have said on more than one occasion in the past few months that there will be plenty of time in your Lordships' House to deal with such issues because a Bill—primary legislation—is coming from the other place and noble Lords could hang many debates on it. I suspect that that will arise in Grand Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord—and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney—for his personal remarks about me but he also said that he is still a terrier and I expect him to remain so.
	Without wanting to be unfair or to dismiss the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, I have only one comment for him: he totally distorts the concept and ideas behind the Maze project. It is not just a stadium. There are 360 acres of land there and to talk about a shrine to terrorism is, frankly, an outrageous misuse of language. Neither the four parties nor the sporting authorities would have signed up to it—I refer to the work that was done long before I arrived in Northern Ireland—if that had been how it was put across. He distorts what is being planned. If he wants to table amendments on costing and everything else, we can debate the matter further. Some people say, "If it is not in Belfast, we do not want it". That is an outrageous view. There are people who actually believe that if it is not in the centre of the city they do not want it. It is a massive opportunity for Northern Ireland. The area will be visited by people from all sections of the islands of the British Isles. What is planned there will be quite phenomenal if it comes about—we have made only the masterplan available at the moment.
	The noble Baroness referred to loans transparency. I will touch briefly on some of the detailed points. I suspect that we will have a good debate in Grand Committee on the legal process for electoral rules in the Republic of Ireland, where there is spillover. They are not running our system; far from it. Nevertheless, there is interaction for reasons that we understand.
	The existing legislation places a duty on Northern Ireland Ministers to uphold the continuing independence of the judiciary; there is no question about that. We will in addition put forward a concordat between Her Majesty's Government and the Northern Ireland Executive that sets out the core principles of the independence and impartiality of the Northern Ireland judiciary. We could take that further in Grand Committee.
	We want Sinn Fein to take its seats on both the Policing Board and the district policing partnership as soon as possible but we have no intention of setting preconditions; that is not what this legislation is about and suggesting that is a total misreading of the situation. I understand that Sinn Fein has stated that it is considering its stance on policing. It will have to make a move because without that there is no future. The ball is in its court and it knows exactly what it must do. You do not have to use sugar-coated language. As I have said before, if you are not for the police it means that you are on the side of the muggers, the burglars, the rapists and the criminal element in society. That is not to say that you support every action of the police. You would not do that. Why would we have a police complaints authority if we did not envisage that there would be areas where the police's actions would have to be looked at? But we all know what we mean by supporting the police and the rule of law. We recognise it when we hear it. So far, we have not heard it from members of that party, and they know what they need to do.
	We will come to the issue of the timing of the canvass, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, when we are in Grand Committee. He asked about an Order in Council. I do not apologise for that. We have a lot of primary legislation as orders which cannot be amended. The Order in Council in relation to anonymous registration will be introduced following the completion of the public consultation process which we are going to carry out on this issue. So it is not something that we will bounce on the House—far from it.
	The point that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised regarding the Electoral Commission and donations from Irish citizens will be taken on board. Clause 15 of the Bill makes it clear that provision in relation to the extension of permissible donors can be made by the Secretary of State only following consultation with the Electoral Commission. So there is an indication that the Electoral Commission will be right in the middle of that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, raised many points, all of which were legitimate, but I will comment on the issue that he mentioned concerning restorative justice schemes. He is right in what he said. We arrived as a new team just over a year ago and discovered these voluntary schemes funded by private parties. There is no question that that arrangement will be unacceptable in the future, and we have made it clear that, where public money is in the system, the police must be involved in the process. Schemes which are unable to meet, or adhere to, the guidelines will have no recognition or assistance from the statutory sector, and the police will investigate any offences which may be reported to them in connection with how schemes operate.
	The Criminal Justice Inspectorate will undertake the role of verifying that accredited schemes conform to the requirements of the guidelines. Schemes will be inspected prior to accreditation, and regularly and randomly thereafter reports will be published. I cannot say at this point when the guidelines will be available. I accept that they certainly were not ready for this legislation.
	I turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. When I was reading my briefing notes, I realised that there were words in bold that I had to stick to and other words where I could do my own thing. When I read out the words "full decommissioning", I realised that some people do not accept that that has happened. Nevertheless, going by the reports that have been published, the IMC confirmed in its 10th report that some arms may have been held without the knowledge of the leadership but that the amount of unsurrendered material was not significant in comparison with that which was decommissioned. Of course, illegal arms are still in the hands of other paramilitary groups, including the loyalists, and all those arms must be removed. We have complete confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues. They and the independent observers witnessed in September the destruction of a very large quantity of arms. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, their assessment that all weapons within the IRA's control have been put beyond use remains correct. Practically, politically and symbolically, this was a huge event, and we should not underestimate the fundamental change that it represents. I agree that symbolically it was significant.
	We will have all the time that is needed to discuss the Bill. It may come as a bit of a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, as it did to me, to find that this place is kinder and gentler than he has been used to. Nevertheless, without qualification regarding the other end, I can confirm that he will find that on the majority of issues the quality of debate in this place is far superior compared with what he and I experienced in the other place. You can never "bull", because there is a world expert on some subjects sitting either in front of you or behind you, and that cannot be said about the other place.
	I am very grateful for noble Lords' contributions. I genuinely look forward immensely to the Committee and other stages of the Bill.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.